Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 2737
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
Tvl. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation - Appellant
Versus
The State Transport Authority, Chepauk & Others - Respondents
W.A.No.1675 of 2000
Decided On : 16 October 2006
The delay in filing a petition may be justified by public interest, and the grant of variation may amount to the grant of a fresh permit, which is impermissible on a scheme route.
Headnote:
Laches - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 57(3) - Section 57(4) - Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 - Scheme Route - Fresh Permit
Fact of the Case:
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation appealed against the dismissal of its writ petition challenging the grant of counter-signature to an operator for an additional vehicle on a scheme route. The Corporation argued that the delay in filing the petition was justified due to public interest and that the grant of variation was contrary to the statute.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the delay in filing the petition was reasonable and that public interest warranted its consideration. It also found that the Corporation was entitled to question the grant of variation despite the absence of objections from the previous operator. The Court further determined that the grant of variation under the old Act was not saved by the enactment of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992. Additionally, it concluded that the grant of variation amounted to the grant of a fresh permit, which was impermissible on a scheme route.
Issues: (1) Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches? (2) Whether the appellant-Corporation would be disentitled to question the grant of variation? (3) Whether the grant of variation under the old Act is saved? (4) Whether the grant of variation would amount to the grant of fresh permit?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the delay in filing the petition was reasonable and that public interest warranted its consideration. It also found that the Corporation was entitled to question the grant of variation despite the absence of objections from the previous operator. The Court further determined that the grant of variation under the old Act was not saved by the enactment of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992. Additionally, it concluded that the grant of variation amounted to the grant of a fresh permit, which was impermissible on a scheme route.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ appeal, holding the grant of counter-signature to be illegal and impermissible.
(Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 30.8.2000 made in W.P.No.14769 of 2000.)
D. Murugesan, J.
The correctness of the order in the writ petition is questioned by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division-III) Ltd., Kancheepuram in this appeal.
2. Following are the few facts giving rise to the present appeal:-
The third respondent/writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "operator") is a permit holder to operate the stage carriage bearing Regn.No.TAJ 5607 on the inter-state route Tirupathi to Arakkonam with five singles per day. A portion of the route in question is a scheme route and the route is also covered by the inter-state agreement in G.O.Ms.No.1000, Home dated 3.6.75 of the State of Tamil Nadu and in G.O.No.715, Home dated 2.6.75 of the State of Andhra Pradesh. As per the provisions of the scheme, a minimum of 8 permit/buses upto a maximum of 14 and the minimum of 24 singles upto a maximum of 48 singles were allowed and the 48 singles included the five singles allowed to the operator.
3. The operator made an application to the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh for variation by way of inclusion of an additional vehicle to perform two singles with the same stage carriage permit and the said application was allowed by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh on 25.6.85. The operator thereafter applied to the State Transport Authority, Tamil Nadu on 19.10.87 for counter-signature. While the said application was pending, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "new Act") came into force with effect from 1.7.89. As the application for counter-signature was kept pending, the operator approached this Court in W.P.No.14038 of 1989 seeking for a direction to the State Transport Authority, Tamil Nadu to dispose of the said application and the said writ petition was ordered on 6.3.90. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the application was notified under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the "old Act"). Only one representation was received from Thiru K.Ramachandra Naidu of Tirupathi to the effect that the route between Arakkonam and Tirupathi was well served and there was no provision in the inter-state agreement for grant of counter-signature for inclusion of an additional vehicle. Though a hearing was held on 23.4.90, the said objector did not attend the hearing. Nevertheless, the application came to be rejected by the State Transport Authority, Tamil Nadu in its order dated 26.4.90 on the ground that under Section 72(2) of the new Act, there is no provision for allowing one more vehicle to be operated on a single permit. The Authority further found that as per Section 80(3) of the new Act, no variation for inclusion of one more vehicle could be granted and the provision does not contemplate for such variation. The Authority also found that the route from Tiruttani to Tirupathi overlapped the approved scheme from Madras to Tirupathi ordered in G.O.Ms.No.293, Home dated 13.2.74 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 13.3.74. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Limited v. M.A.Egappan reported in AIR 1987 SC 958, no persons other than those specifically authorised by the terms of the scheme can be allowed to operate on the route or sector of the notified route.
4. Questioning the above order, the operator preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and the said appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 5.12.90. The Tribunal concurred with the operator on the ground that in terms of Section 72(2) and Section 80(3) of the new Act, the variation could be granted on a single permit to operate one more vehicle on the same route. As the said order of the Tribunal was not implemented, the operator filed W.P.No.21207 of 1993 seeking for a direction to implement the said order. This
